Karma Dorje wrote: I don't believe that any fool without education should make decisions for the whole. I am much more comfortable with educated people, or in this case realized people, deciding for the community who best exemplifies the lineage.

Under a monarchy, your opinion on this topic doesn't count.

Under a Dharma king or queen, my opinion on this topic is not necessary.

Your opinion on this topic is not necessary anyway,but at least in a democracy your opinion matters....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Your opinion on this topic is not necessary anyway,but at least in a democracy your opinion matters.

Opinions don't matter in the least unless they serve the corporate overlords (the US has the best politicians money can buy). But hey... keep the faith.

...and who does the monarch serve?

and more to the point, from where does a monarch derive his/her authority?What is it that actually gives a monarch the right to tell you or me what to do, to collect tribute (money) from us, etc?...

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Your opinion on this topic is not necessary anyway,but at least in a democracy your opinion matters.

Opinions don't matter in the least unless they serve the corporate overlords (the US has the best politicians money can buy). But hey... keep the faith.

Yes, there's nothing quite like monarchy for that fresh, bubbly concentration of wealth and power combined with no voice in the saying of how things are run. Yep....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Your opinion on this topic is not necessary anyway,but at least in a democracy your opinion matters.

Opinions don't matter in the least unless they serve the corporate overlords (the US has the best politicians money can buy). But hey... keep the faith.

...and who does the monarch serve?

and more to the point, from where does a monarch derive his/her authority?What is it that actually gives a monarch the right to tell you or me what to do, to collect tribute (money) from us, etc?...

Aren't "rights" simply another modern myth? I frankly do not understand what does the phrase "X gives this person a right to do Y" means, unless it is said in purely legal sense.

Regarding the issue of authority, if a form of government or a rule of a certain person can be shown to be more beneficial for the ruled people in comparison to the possible alternatives, then this authority is good and it is desirable for it to continue. No other justification is necessary.

mirage wrote:Aren't "rights" simply another modern myth? I frankly do not understand what does the phrase "X gives this person a right to do Y" means, unless it is said in purely legal sense.

Regarding the issue of authority, if a form of government or a rule of a certain person can be shown to be more beneficial for the ruled people in comparison to the possible alternatives, then this authority is good and it is desirable for it to continue. No other justification is necessary.

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

mirage wrote:Aren't "rights" simply another modern myth? I frankly do not understand what does the phrase "X gives this person a right to do Y" means, unless it is said in purely legal sense.

Regarding the issue of authority, if a form of government or a rule of a certain person can be shown to be more beneficial for the ruled people in comparison to the possible alternatives, then this authority is good and it is desirable for it to continue. No other justification is necessary.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

You are not comparing monarchy to democracy, because American society (for example) is not a democracy it is a corporatist oligarchy. If things are crap under the current system where an incredibly small number (oligo) of people rule, imagine how much more crap it would be if one person, mono (single) archy (ruler), ruled. Now if that one person was a swell dude/dudette then everyhing would be sweet. But given the range of ability of an average human, well... I don't have to tell you the result, we can see that quite clearly for ourselves. Even under the current system.

Some questions: What is the essential difference between monarchism and a despotism? Why would one support the political option of monarchy and not of dictatorship? Realistcally, one is as legitimate as the other.

Part of the trouble we may be having in this conversation has to do with the plasticity of the concept of democracy. What does it mean for a society to be democratic? For an institution to be democratic? In the States, we like to think we have a form of government that is representative of the people (measured by votes), but most of the institutions we interact with on a daily basis are not at all democratic. Corporations are authoritarian regimes, as a rule. Do you vote for your boss? For corporate strategy or policy or practices? No: you follow Dear Leader, whose decisions are inscrutible and final. To whom is Dear Leader accountable? That depends...

Meanwhile, democracy itself can produce some surprises. People can vote for or publicly support very anti-democratic policies and political figures. Every country has its JM LePen, Pauline Hansen, or Generic Tea-Party Candidate (there are too many to count in the US at present).

And what do you make of this?--

popular participation in the “Great Terror,” a period in which millions of people were arrested, interrogated, shot, and sent to labor camps. In the unions and the factories, repression was accompanied by a mass campaign for democracy. Party leaders urged workers to criticize and remove corrupt and negligent officials. Workers, shop foremen, local Party members, and union leaders adopted the slogans of repression and used them, often against each other, to redress long-standing grievances. Using new, formerly secret archival sources, Terror and Democracy in Stalin's Russia shows how ordinary people moved in clear stages toward madness and self-destruction.

gregkavarnos wrote:You are not comparing monarchy to democracy, because American society (for example) is not a democracy it is a corporatist oligarchy.

It is whatever the people allow it to be.The working class is the majority, women are the majority, non-caucasians are or may soon be, collectively, the majority. Social, political and economic change takes a lot of constant hard work, money and time and the majority of people are not interested in that. But progressive change happens all the time in the United States. If you count marijuana legalization and gay marriage, for example, which are becoming a reality, then these are two perfect examples of a working democracy. These two issues are not solid yet, but people are making it happen. The king is not making it happen.Is democracy easy? no.

The fact is, however, ignorant, suffering, foolish people are the majority.They are also the minority.

btw, corporations also include every incorporated sangha (functioning as a tax-exempt religious charitable organization) in the U.S. for example, Vipassana Foundation, a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization. which hosts this forum.So, if you are bashing corporations as a whole, you are including the very one that provides you with the opportunity to bash...

Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:41 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

mirage wrote:It is fortunate, then, that I do not rely on having a "right" to be able to say or post something. It is sufficient that I am 1)physically able to post and 2)see good reason to do so.

You are not allowed to post that, and you do not have the right to post that....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

I think the only substantial "democracy" actually usually comes outside the power structure, and is often at odds with it, at least to some degree. So I guess i'd say that democracy in a genuine sense is something that people are doing, rather than something a country is. Gotta agree with Greg on the Corporatist thing though...really that determines more about this country (and by extension much of the world) operates than any ideology does.

PadmaVonSamba wrote:btw, corporations also include every incorporated sangha (functioning as a tax-exempt religious charitable organization) in the U.S. for example, Vipassana Foundation, a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization. which hosts this forum.So, if you are bashing corporations as a whole, you are including the very one that provides you with the opportunity to bash.

You really need to read up on what corporatism is before making irrelevant statements like the that!

mirage wrote:Um... okay? I am posting it anyway, so what is the difference?

The difference is that under a monarchy if you were to make a statement and/or tried to organise people around an idea that was contrary to the monarchs then "all the kings horses and all the kings men" would kick your ass and stick you in a dungeon. (Theoretically) in a Democracy you are allowed to express your opinion, even if it may be "dangerous", without fear of persecution.

The difference is that under a monarchy if you were to make a statement and/or tried to organise people around an idea that was contrary to the monarchs then "all the kings horses and all the kings men" would kick your ass and stick you in a dungeon.

I wonder what kind of "statement" or "organisation" you are thinking of?

Sweden has the Swedish Republican Association.Norway has the Norwegian Republican Alliance.The United Kingdom the Republican Party. The Netherlands the New Republican Fellowship.I did't check the other monarchies.

These are organisations, political parties who only came into existence to promote the abolition of the Monarchy. They are perfectly legal organisations and have been around for quite some time.

I wonder if you could give an example that would show the power of a monarch? (in Europe)

mirage wrote:Um... okay? I am posting it anyway, so what is the difference?

The difference is that under a monarchy if you were to make a statement and/or tried to organise people around an idea that was contrary to the monarchs then "all the kings horses and all the kings men" would kick your ass and stick you in a dungeon. (Theoretically) in a Democracy you are allowed to express your opinion, even if it may be "dangerous", without fear of persecution.

That would be no change from what would happen to me if I did it right now, then I get your point, though I have to say that nothing in the idea of monarchy makes such repressive behaviour mandatory. The monarch might as well permit people to make statements and organize around certain causes, as long as they do not cross some lines - which is exactly what we have in any society, really. Even in most democratic societies there are opinions you are not allowed to express. Of course, he may choose to suppress the dissenters - but again, doesn't it happen anyway, monarchy or no monarchy? Let's say there are examples of both in countries that style themselves as monarchies or democracies, and I see no clear pattern. It seems to be related to wealth and national culture/values more than anything.

A subtler objection is that a "democratic" regime might as well fully permit freedom of expression, formation of political movements and such - simply because the ruling elite does not care. People get together, shout about changing things - and nothing happens. They have "rights", but they have no power. The regime safely relies on the passive majority, controlling it through media manipulation and such, and stays in power indefinitely in a fully democratic way. Worse, they use their democratic legitimacy to push any agenda they like - by launching a propaganda campaign, overtly or subtly, they shape the public opinion and then act on it, requiring no further moral justification. This is the method of control that seems to be predominant.

I agree with the OP, in the sense that democracy is the absolute unquestioned value of the west. Whether it is a good value or not is worth interrogating. A few points to consider:

1. The tremendous gap between the rhetoric of democracy (in the west) and the profoundly undemocratic reality. I think, following Aristotle, that we are more or less living in an Oligarchy. It would be good if we all admitted that. Trotting up to the ballot box once every four years to vote for the red or the blue party which has the same neoliberal policies has little or nothing at all to do with the political logic of democracy.

2. Monarchies can be fine, wonderful even, until the wise and benevolent ruler dies and gets replaced by his/her idiot bloodthirsty son. History is replete with this problematic.

The difference is that under a monarchy if you were to make a statement and/or tried to organise people around an idea that was contrary to the monarchs then "all the kings horses and all the kings men" would kick your ass and stick you in a dungeon.

I wonder what kind of "statement" or "organisation" you are thinking of?

Sweden has the Swedish Republican Association.Norway has the Norwegian Republican Alliance.The United Kingdom the Republican Party. The Netherlands the New Republican Fellowship.I did't check the other monarchies.

These are organisations, political parties who only came into existence to promote the abolition of the Monarchy. They are perfectly legal organisations and have been around for quite some time.

I wonder if you could give an example that would show the power of a monarch? (in Europe)

These are not absolute monarchies, they are constitutional monarchies. The parties you mention are part of the political system and do not essentially "rock the boat". Sinn Fein are also allowed a voice in Northern Ireland (the UK) but the IRA, who are fighting against the monarchy (and against British rule since they are a Nationalist movement too)? NO! Does Sweden, Norway or the Netherlands have anything like the IRA? Noooooo... Why not? Coz "all the kings horses..."

As for the UK, apart from the IRA, you also have the Scottish National Party that are (mainly) Republican and Nationalists too. When exactly is the referendum on the independence of Scotland?

I imagine the reason the English monarchy enjoys the support it has, is the fact that it is also inextricably entwined into English nationalism too. This, in turn, gives rise to a Republican nature to the Nationalist struggles against the (English) monarchy. Funny thing though, is that the English royal family are actually of Bavarian descent. Just to continue the irony: the royal family that the English imposed on the Greek nation (1833-1973), following Greece's independence from the Ottoman Empire, was Bavarian too!!! From the Wittelbach and Glucksburg families!

Then we come to another sticking point of monarchism: aristocracy vs meritocracy. In a monarchy, power is inherited, and not gained through capacity/ability. If you are REALLY capable (and capable normally means capable of serving the monarch) then you may get knighted and join the aristocracy too. There is no real social and economic mobilty in a monarchy, you are either a member of the family or you are not. That is why most republican revolutions are bourgeoise in nature.